Testing and evaluation framework for LLM prompts and applications -- promptfooconfig.yaml, assertions, model-graded evals, red teaming, CI/CD integration, custom providers, and comparative evaluation
Scanned 5/27/2026
Install via CLI
Skills Directoryopenskills install agents-inc/skills---
name: ai-observability-promptfoo
description: Testing and evaluation framework for LLM prompts and applications -- promptfooconfig.yaml, assertions, model-graded evals, red teaming, CI/CD integration, custom providers, and comparative evaluation
---
# Promptfoo Patterns
> **Quick Guide:** Use promptfoo for systematic LLM evaluation. Define prompts, providers, and test cases in `promptfooconfig.yaml`. Use assertion types (`contains`, `is-json`, `llm-rubric`, `similar`, `cost`, `latency`) to validate outputs. Use `promptfoo eval` to run (exits with code 100 on test failures), `promptfoo view` for results UI. Use model-graded assertions (`llm-rubric`, `factuality`) for subjective quality. Use `promptfoo redteam run` for security scanning. Use `--share` flag or `promptfoo share` to share results. All provider API keys come from environment variables -- never hardcode them.
---
<critical_requirements>
## CRITICAL: Before Using This Skill
> **All code must follow project conventions in CLAUDE.md** (kebab-case, named exports, import ordering, `import type`, named constants)
**(You MUST define test cases with explicit `assert` arrays -- tests without assertions only capture output without validating it)**
**(You MUST use `llm-rubric` for subjective quality evaluation -- do NOT rely solely on deterministic assertions for natural language output)**
**(You MUST set `threshold` on similarity and model-graded assertions -- omitting thresholds uses defaults that may not match your quality bar)**
**(You MUST use environment variables for all API keys -- never hardcode keys in promptfooconfig.yaml or provider configs)**
**(You MUST verify `promptfoo eval` exit code in CI pipelines -- it returns exit code 100 on test failures, exit code 1 on other errors)**
</critical_requirements>
---
**Auto-detection:** promptfoo, promptfooconfig, promptfooconfig.yaml, promptfoo eval, promptfoo view, promptfoo redteam, llm-rubric, model-graded-closedqa, promptfoo share, promptfoo cache, assertion type, LLM evaluation, prompt testing, red teaming, PROMPTFOO_CONFIG
**When to use:**
- Writing or evaluating LLM prompts across one or more providers
- Setting up automated test suites for LLM-powered features
- Comparing model outputs side-by-side (GPT vs Claude vs Gemini)
- Running model-graded evaluations (LLM-as-a-judge)
- Red teaming LLM applications for security vulnerabilities
- Integrating LLM quality gates into CI/CD pipelines
- Validating structured output (JSON, function calls) from LLMs
**Key patterns covered:**
- `promptfooconfig.yaml` structure (prompts, providers, tests, defaultTest)
- Assertion types (deterministic, model-graded, performance)
- Custom TypeScript providers
- Red teaming configuration (plugins, strategies)
- CI/CD integration with GitHub Actions
- Programmatic API (`evaluate()` function)
- Result sharing and caching
**When NOT to use:**
- Unit testing application code (use your test runner)
- Load testing / benchmarking API throughput (use a load testing tool)
- Runtime monitoring of production LLM calls (use observability tooling)
---
## Examples Index
- [Core: Config & Assertions](examples/core.md) -- promptfooconfig.yaml structure, providers, prompts, test cases, assertion types
- [Model-Graded & Advanced Assertions](examples/model-graded.md) -- llm-rubric, factuality, similar, context evaluation, custom assertions
- [Red Teaming](examples/red-teaming.md) -- Security scanning, plugins, strategies, presets
- [Custom Providers & Programmatic API](examples/custom-providers.md) -- TypeScript providers, evaluate() function, CI/CD integration
- [Quick API Reference](reference.md) -- CLI commands, assertion type table, provider IDs, red team plugins
---
<philosophy>
## Philosophy
Promptfoo brings **test-driven development to LLM applications**. Instead of manually checking outputs, you define expected behaviors as assertions and run them systematically across prompts and providers.
**Core principles:**
1. **Declarative test definitions** -- YAML config over imperative test scripts. Define prompts, providers, test cases, and assertions in `promptfooconfig.yaml`. No code required for standard evaluations.
2. **Assertion-driven validation** -- Every test case should have assertions. Deterministic assertions (`contains`, `is-json`, `equals`) for structured output; model-graded assertions (`llm-rubric`, `factuality`) for subjective quality.
3. **Comparative evaluation** -- Run the same tests across multiple providers or prompt variants simultaneously. The results matrix shows which combination performs best.
4. **Shift-left LLM testing** -- Catch prompt regressions in CI before they reach production. `promptfoo eval` exits with code 100 on test failures, making it a natural CI quality gate.
5. **Red teaming as a first-class concern** -- Security scanning for prompt injection, PII leakage, harmful content, and jailbreak vulnerabilities is built in, not bolted on.
</philosophy>
---
<patterns>
## Core Patterns
### Pattern 1: Basic Configuration
Every promptfoo project starts with `promptfooconfig.yaml`. Three required sections: `prompts`, `providers`, `tests`.
```yaml
# promptfooconfig.yaml
description: "Translation quality evaluation"
prompts:
- "Convert the following to {{language}}: {{input}}"
providers:
- openai:gpt-4o
- anthropic:messages:claude-sonnet-4-6
tests:
- vars:
language: French
input: Hello world
assert:
- type: icontains
value: "bonjour"
- type: llm-rubric
value: "Output is a natural French translation, not word-for-word"
```
**Why good:** Declarative config, multi-provider comparison, both deterministic and model-graded assertions
```yaml
# BAD: Tests without assertions
tests:
- vars:
language: French
input: Hello world
# No assert array -- output is captured but never validated
```
**Why bad:** Tests without assertions only log output, they never fail -- you lose the entire point of automated evaluation
**See:** [examples/core.md](examples/core.md) for prompts from files, provider config, defaultTest, variable loading from CSV
---
### Pattern 2: Deterministic Assertions
Use for outputs with predictable, verifiable structure.
```yaml
assert:
# String matching
- type: contains
value: "error"
- type: icontains # case-insensitive
value: "success"
- type: not-contains
value: "internal server error"
- type: starts-with
value: "{"
- type: regex
value: "\\d{4}-\\d{2}-\\d{2}" # date pattern
# Structured output
- type: is-json
- type: contains-json
- type: is-valid-openai-tools-call
# Performance
- type: cost
threshold: 0.01 # max $0.01 per call
- type: latency
threshold: 5000 # max 5 seconds
```
**Why good:** Fast, deterministic, no LLM cost for evaluation, catches structural regressions immediately
```yaml
# BAD: Using llm-rubric for JSON validation
assert:
- type: llm-rubric
value: "Output must be valid JSON"
```
**Why bad:** Expensive (requires LLM call), slower, non-deterministic -- `is-json` does this deterministically for free
**See:** [examples/core.md](examples/core.md) for all deterministic assertion types with examples
---
### Pattern 3: Model-Graded Assertions
Use for subjective quality where deterministic checks cannot capture intent.
```yaml
assert:
- type: llm-rubric
value: "Response is helpful, accurate, and conversational in tone"
provider: openai:gpt-4o
- type: factuality
value: "The capital of France is Paris. It has a population of ~2.1 million."
provider: openai:gpt-4o
- type: similar
value: "The weather in Paris is sunny today"
threshold: 0.8
- type: model-graded-closedqa
value: "Paris is the capital of France"
provider: openai:gpt-4o
```
**Why good:** Evaluates subjective quality that deterministic assertions cannot capture, configurable grading provider
```yaml
# BAD: No threshold on similar assertion
assert:
- type: similar
value: "expected output"
# Missing threshold -- uses default which may be too lenient or strict
```
**Why bad:** Default similarity threshold may not match your quality bar, always set it explicitly
**See:** [examples/model-graded.md](examples/model-graded.md) for llm-rubric with custom providers, context evaluation, factuality, custom grading prompts
---
### Pattern 4: Red Teaming
Use `redteam` section to scan for security vulnerabilities.
```yaml
# promptfooconfig.yaml
targets:
- openai:gpt-4o
redteam:
purpose: "Customer support chatbot for an e-commerce platform"
numTests: 10
plugins:
- harmful
- pii
- contracts
- hallucination
- prompt-extraction
strategies:
- jailbreak
- prompt-injection
```
**Why good:** Declarative security scanning, purpose provides context for realistic attacks, composable plugins and strategies
```yaml
# BAD: Red team without purpose
redteam:
plugins:
- harmful
# Missing purpose -- attacks will be generic and less effective
```
**Why bad:** Without `purpose`, the red team generator creates generic attacks that miss application-specific vulnerabilities
**See:** [examples/red-teaming.md](examples/red-teaming.md) for presets (OWASP, NIST), advanced strategies, multi-turn attacks
---
### Pattern 5: Custom TypeScript Provider
Use when your LLM integration is not a direct API call (RAG pipelines, agent chains, custom middleware).
```typescript
// providers/my-app.ts
import type {
ApiProvider,
ProviderOptions,
ProviderResponse,
CallApiContextParams,
} from "promptfoo";
// NOTE: default export required by promptfoo's file:// provider loader
export default class MyAppProvider implements ApiProvider {
private config: Record<string, unknown>;
constructor(options: ProviderOptions) {
this.config = options.config || {};
}
id(): string {
return "my-app-provider";
}
async callApi(
prompt: string,
context?: CallApiContextParams,
): Promise<ProviderResponse> {
// Call your application's LLM pipeline
const result = await myApp.processQuery(prompt);
return {
output: result.answer,
tokenUsage: {
total: result.totalTokens,
prompt: result.promptTokens,
completion: result.completionTokens,
},
cost: result.cost,
};
}
}
```
```yaml
# promptfooconfig.yaml
providers:
- file://providers/my-app.ts
```
**Why good:** Type-safe, full control over LLM pipeline, reports token usage and cost for assertions
**See:** [examples/custom-providers.md](examples/custom-providers.md) for inline function providers, programmatic API, CI/CD integration
---
### Pattern 6: CI/CD Integration
Run evaluations in CI with quality gates.
```yaml
# .github/workflows/llm-eval.yml
name: LLM Eval
on:
pull_request:
paths:
- "prompts/**"
- "promptfooconfig.yaml"
jobs:
evaluate:
runs-on: ubuntu-latest
steps:
- uses: actions/checkout@v4
- uses: actions/setup-node@v4
with:
node-version: "22"
- uses: actions/cache@v4
with:
path: ~/.cache/promptfoo
key: ${{ runner.os }}-promptfoo-v1
- name: Run eval
env:
OPENAI_API_KEY: ${{ secrets.OPENAI_API_KEY }}
run: npx promptfoo@latest eval -o results.json --share
```
**Why good:** Caches LLM responses across runs, `promptfoo eval` exits with code 100 on test failures (CI fails automatically), `--share` generates a shareable results URL
**See:** [examples/custom-providers.md](examples/custom-providers.md) for npm scripts, quality gate thresholds, programmatic evaluation
</patterns>
---
<decision_framework>
## Decision Framework
### Which Assertion Type to Use
```
What are you validating?
+-- Exact or structural match?
| +-- Exact text -> equals
| +-- Contains substring -> contains / icontains
| +-- Regex pattern -> regex
| +-- Valid JSON -> is-json
| +-- Valid function call -> is-valid-openai-tools-call
| +-- Cost under budget -> cost (with threshold)
| +-- Response time -> latency (with threshold)
+-- Subjective quality?
| +-- General quality criteria -> llm-rubric
| +-- Factual accuracy against ground truth -> factuality
| +-- Semantic similarity -> similar (with threshold)
| +-- Closed-domain QA accuracy -> model-graded-closedqa
| +-- RAG context fidelity -> context-faithfulness
+-- Custom logic?
+-- JavaScript function -> javascript
+-- Python function -> python
+-- External service -> webhook
```
### When to Use Red Teaming vs Eval
```
What are you testing?
+-- Prompt quality and correctness?
| +-- Use promptfoo eval with test cases and assertions
+-- Security vulnerabilities?
| +-- Use promptfoo redteam run with plugins and strategies
+-- Both?
+-- Run eval for quality, redteam for security -- separate configs or sections
```
### Provider Selection
```
How does your LLM integration work?
+-- Direct API call to OpenAI/Anthropic/etc?
| +-- Use built-in provider: openai:gpt-4o, anthropic:messages:claude-sonnet-4-6
+-- Custom pipeline (RAG, agents, middleware)?
| +-- Use custom TypeScript provider: file://providers/my-app.ts
+-- HTTP endpoint?
| +-- Use HTTP provider: id: https://api.example.com/chat
+-- Multiple providers to compare?
+-- List all in providers array -- promptfoo runs tests against each
```
</decision_framework>
---
<red_flags>
## RED FLAGS
**High Priority Issues:**
- Tests without `assert` arrays (output is captured but never validated -- tests always "pass")
- Not checking `promptfoo eval` exit code in CI (`promptfoo eval` exits 100 on test failures -- ensure your CI pipeline treats non-zero exit codes as failures)
- Hardcoded API keys in `promptfooconfig.yaml` (use environment variables)
- Using `llm-rubric` for checks that `is-json` or `contains` can do deterministically (wastes money and adds non-determinism)
- Red teaming without `purpose` (generic attacks miss application-specific vulnerabilities)
**Medium Priority Issues:**
- Missing `threshold` on `similar` assertions (default may not match your quality bar)
- Not caching in CI (every run makes full API calls -- expensive and slow)
- Using `model-graded-closedqa` when `llm-rubric` would be simpler (closedqa is for specific ground-truth QA)
- Not setting `provider` on model-graded assertions (uses default which may not be the grader you want)
- Running red team with default `numTests: 5` in production scans (too few for comprehensive coverage)
**Common Mistakes:**
- Confusing `prompts` (the LLM prompt templates) with `tests` (the evaluation cases) -- prompts define what to send, tests define what to check
- Using `equals` for natural language output (LLM output is non-deterministic, use `llm-rubric` or `similar`)
- Forgetting `{{variable}}` syntax in prompts (promptfoo uses Nunjucks templating, not `${variable}`)
- Putting assertions in `defaultTest` that should only apply to specific tests (assertions in `defaultTest` apply to ALL tests)
- Using `file://` paths without the prefix (promptfoo treats bare paths as literal strings, not file references)
**Gotchas & Edge Cases:**
- `promptfoo eval` caches LLM responses by default -- use `promptfoo cache clear` or `--no-cache` to force fresh calls
- `--share` uploads results to promptfoo's servers -- do not use with sensitive data unless self-hosting
- Red team `strategies` wrap `plugins` output -- a plugin generates the malicious content, a strategy delivers it (e.g., via jailbreak encoding)
- `defaultTest.assert` merges with per-test assertions, it does not replace them -- both arrays run
- CSV test files map column headers to variable names -- header `input` becomes `{{input}}` in prompts
- `transform` in test options runs JavaScript on the output before assertions -- useful for extracting JSON from markdown-wrapped responses
- Provider configs in YAML use `config:` key for model parameters (`temperature`, `max_tokens`), not top-level fields
- The `weight` property on assertions affects scoring in the results UI but does not change pass/fail behavior
</red_flags>
---
<critical_reminders>
## CRITICAL REMINDERS
> **All code must follow project conventions in CLAUDE.md** (kebab-case, named exports, import ordering, `import type`, named constants)
**(You MUST define test cases with explicit `assert` arrays -- tests without assertions only capture output without validating it)**
**(You MUST use `llm-rubric` for subjective quality evaluation -- do NOT rely solely on deterministic assertions for natural language output)**
**(You MUST set `threshold` on similarity and model-graded assertions -- omitting thresholds uses defaults that may not match your quality bar)**
**(You MUST use environment variables for all API keys -- never hardcode keys in promptfooconfig.yaml or provider configs)**
**(You MUST verify `promptfoo eval` exit code in CI pipelines -- it returns exit code 100 on test failures, exit code 1 on other errors)**
**Failure to follow these rules will produce untested, insecure, or falsely-passing LLM evaluation pipelines.**
</critical_reminders>
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!
